IIRC It took less than 2 years for 4K monitors to go from £2500 to £500.
FIRST 4K 144Hz G-SYNC HDR MONITOR NOW AVAILABLE - BRACE YOURSELVES!!!
IIRC It took less than 2 years for 4K monitors to go from £2500 to £500.
Soldato
maybe but the QA was still was bugsplosh.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,788
Man of Honour
Not IME - my Samsung 4K has served me well from the day I bought it.
Edit: that was 4 years ago and it cost me £499.99 from OCUK.
Last edited:
IIRC the Samsung was one of the better offerings of that group - the AOC had horrid input lag and some OSD glitches mostly in relation to power saving which could be partially offset by turning the volume on the monitor to zero :s even then one half of the screen would sometimes become out of sync with the other or start only updating at 30Hz and the Asus version had some similar issues with "popping" and occasionally one half of the monitor having problems updating or random flickering or darkening of the display, etc. (not related to signal reliability).
Was a few abortive offerings at like £2500 that no one really touched that did things like requiring dual DP inputs and used 2-4 panels internally, etc. the first proper launch of a mainstream 4K 27-28" monitor was at ~£500.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,593
People would have to be have more money than sense to buy this, considering how the graphic cards would come nowhere close to pushing that high refresh rate for games at 4K, especially with SLI/Crossfire pretty much dead, Nvidia dip-feeding the consumers with small performance increase each gen (like Intel did) and AMD not keeping up.
Lots of people seem to be content with how graphic cards are capable enough with pushing Full HD and Quad HD res, but the reality is the the graphic card performance improvement for the consumers products have feel so far behind that it is not keeping up with the development of displays. I can understand from business point of view as yes we all know business ain't charity and it's all about profit maximisation, but it doesn't change the fact the whole gaming graphic -industry is being held-back by self-serving purpose, and it is not funny seeing mid-range GPUs cards that should be 60/60Ti cards being called 70/80 cards and sold at £400+/£600+ at launch.
Lots of people seem to be content with how graphic cards are capable enough with pushing Full HD and Quad HD res, but the reality is the the graphic card performance improvement for the consumers products have feel so far behind that it is not keeping up with the development of displays. I can understand from business point of view as yes we all know business ain't charity and it's all about profit maximisation, but it doesn't change the fact the whole gaming graphic -industry is being held-back by self-serving purpose, and it is not funny seeing mid-range GPUs cards that should be 60/60Ti cards being called 70/80 cards and sold at £400+/£600+ at launch.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 44,990
Haha. Hahahahaha. That price. Oh how we need some decent competition. We seem to be a long long way off this tech being even remotely attainable.
In the meantime I will stick to my 65" 4K TV and Steam Link.
In the meantime I will stick to my 65" 4K TV and Steam Link.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,788
Tbf man this is bleeding edge stuff and those first adopters will have to pay for it, and probably gladly to!! Us poor folk will have to wait a year or two for the more reasonable stuff to filter through
Yea i totally get the space issue people might have, all i was trying to do was demonstrate what you can get for your money that is close to the offerings we are seeing here.... 27" 120Htz 4K monitor.... Big deal right. On paper it doesnt sound like much does it and still they wanna charge over 2K for it! PC gaming is just crazy these days.Not everyone has room for a screen larger than 27/28" where the PC is.I dont really fancy sitting 2'/3' away from a 40" screen. I would love to get/try a 30/31/32" monitor but it just wont fit. This is why the cost of this screen is a joke. It being "new tech" and hence the premium price I agree in this day and age is ridiculous.
+1 by that time in 4/5 years when the QA has hopefully improved I will need a new monitor.
This is not true.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,593
Dropping graphic settings down to low/medium at 4K on a 1080Ti on a modern game for the sake of pushing 100+fps don't count; that's as bad as Sony and Microsoft calling PS4 Pro and Xbox One X 4K consoles.
I'm not convinced a 27" 4K monitor makes a huge amount of sense, 32" would be more like it. 2 year warranty isn't good, especially at that crazy price. When there are 32" monitors with similar specs @~£1000 I might be interested.
Soldato
Soldato
They might as well make it 500Hz or 1000Hz for all the difference it'll make, because no single card will push it anywhere near 144Hz at that resolution. And what on earth are those monstrosities on the sides?
I'm prone to chucking my disposable income at frivolous tech, but I honestly can't think of one good reason to even consider this purchase.
I'm prone to chucking my disposable income at frivolous tech, but I honestly can't think of one good reason to even consider this purchase.
Please stop spouting such drivel. Just because some games cannot doesn't mean that other games can. State of Decay 2, for instance, reaches over 70 fps on ultra settings at 4K on a 1080 Ti; drop some settings a bit for more performance. Far Cry V breaks 60 fps with all settings maxxed and will average over 60 fps with a few tweaks; again drop some settings for higher performance. Wolfenstein 2 often breaks 100 fps at 4k on Mein Leiben settings. And so on. And they will only run faster with newer GPUs. And there are older games that will happily run at very high frame rates. The original Far Cry will run at 180 fps at 4k with everything cranked, for instance.
I have been gaming at 4k for years. Have you? I have some knowledge of the subject; do you have any?
aye but this is Acer we are talking about !
And that is a big point.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,593
Sorry but not sure if you realise your argument is supporting what I'm was stating or not?
People getting 120/144Hz display would want the frame remain at above 100fps pretty much at ALL TIME, not "occasionally" hitting 100fps+ or only max frame rate hitting above 100fps with the minimum frame rate dip to 40fps on regularly basis. If people's graphic card or system can only dish out 40-50fps on the minimum frame rate most of the time, there is no real incentive to spend a fortunate/price premium on getting a 4K 144Hz display over a 4K 60Hz display. For 4K 144Hz, comparing to gaming at 4K 60Hz you'd essentially need TWICE the amount of graphic grunt to achieve that. Traditionally people can rely on SLI/Crossfire, but now those tech are pretty much dead.
You have gamed on 4K 60Hz, but have you gamed on high refresh rate 120/144Hz display? I have, and I can tell you that with frame rate fluctuating between 50fps and 120fps is not a pleasant experience- it's like driving on a motorway at 100mph and suddenly slow down to 50mph and then quickly back up to 100mph again only to slow down to 50mph just seconds later. There's a reason why "consistant frame rate" is more preferable for games, and why consoles would lock some games frame rate 30fps as the experience is just overall smoother.
Did I say a 1080Ti is rubbish for gaming at 4K 60Hz? Nope. All I said was nobody would be willing to trade off so much graphic details, just for the sake or keeping the minimum frame rate consistently at 100fps+. You seem to have taking my point out of context, and forgotten what this thread is about- a 4K 144Hz display. G-sync would help yes, but not so much in the situation of extreme sharp drop or rise of frame rate within seconds.
Well yes, but it means that there's not much you need to disable. Generally AA - when you have a high dpi monitor most of the AA stuff isn't needed - and Nvidia's Hairworks, and perhaps a bump down from Ultra to High. And yes, I have gamed on high-refresh displays. I remember running my 22" Iiyama CRT (remember those?) at 180 or 200 Hz - 800x 600 IIRC - and gamed at high fps rates. Hell, I've got a 100 Hz 3440x1440 monitor in front of me right now.
And when you can demonstrate that you actually do have to do so, we'll listen to you. In the meantime, I'll keep on playing my games.